Originally Posted by mordan

ftr I am not a big RP isn't getting his fair share guy, and think sites and newspapers have the right to give coverage to whoever they want

That isn't what Dyz or anyone is saying. No one is arguing that each newspaper or site can't print whatever or whomever they want, but they shouldn't tout themselves as "fair and reasonable" or no spin, etc..

*basically Fox should just change their tagline to "The Conservative News Network" and MSNBC should change to "The Liberal Network" or maybe just news for gays, i duno something that has a good ring to it.

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

We all know that President Obama won his party's primary in New Hampshire. What you may not know is that Obama only won 79.5% of the vote. Second place in the New Hampshire Democratic primary went to Ron Paul, with 3.7%...

Gingrich is surging in South Carolina, this will add to it. Perry has consistently polled at 4-6% in SC, if all those votes move into the Gingrich column he may win the state with room to spare. That will be huge for his fundraising and his narrative in the media.

Its bad news for Romney because it adds to the likelihood of him losing South Carolina, where he was hoping to wrap the nomination up. If Gingrich wins, Romney will have a substantial opponent going into the February primaries and Super Tuesday...and a substantial opponent is the absolute last thing Romney needs.

Its bad news for Paul because it reinforces the likelihood he will finish 3rd or worse. Couple that with the obliteration he's going to face in Florida and its looking pretty grim for him.

Its terrible news for Santorum because he's the only one besides Gingrich who might have gotten Perry's endorsement. If he had gotten it, that might have created some buzz and given him vague hope of the 2nd place finish he needs to keep going. Since he failed to get it though, its going to remain a dogfight between him and Paul in the SC Sacko Bowl and his campaign is looking grimmer and grimmer too.

If this is a four horse race and Romney loses both sc and fl its an excellent thing for Paul. Making the race last until super Tuesday will make a brokered convention more likely. This happening and Paul staying in the 15-25% range in most states gives him a prime spot at the convention. Victory for rp is not necessarily the nomination but shoving the repubs back to their roots of no nation building and fiscal sanity.

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

Gingrich is surging in South Carolina, this will add to it. Perry has consistently polled at 4-6% in SC, if all those votes move into the Gingrich column he may win the state with room to spare. That will be huge for his fundraising and his narrative in the media.

Its bad news for Romney because it adds to the likelihood of him losing South Carolina, where he was hoping to wrap the nomination up. If Gingrich wins, Romney will have a substantial opponent going into the February primaries and Super Tuesday...and a substantial opponent is the absolute last thing Romney needs.

Its bad news for Paul because it reinforces the likelihood he will finish 3rd or worse. Couple that with the obliteration he's going to face in Florida and its looking pretty grim for him.

Its terrible news for Santorum because he's the only one besides Gingrich who might have gotten Perry's endorsement. If he had gotten it, that might have created some buzz and given him vague hope of the 2nd place finish he needs to keep going. Since he failed to get it though, its going to remain a dogfight between him and Paul in the SC Sacko Bowl and his campaign is looking grimmer and grimmer too.

Florida doesn't matter. Paul already plans on losing there and isn't going to spend money there. Since it is a "winner take all" state it would be a waste to spend money there unless you have a chance of winning the state. Paul is concentrating on the caucus states, the states with open primaries and the states with proportional awarding of delegates. Romeny not winning SC is good for Paul. In fact, a three way race between Gingrich, Paul and Romney would make a Paul win more likely than if Romney keeps winning.

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Paul already plans on losing there and isn't going to spend money there. Since it is a "winner take all" state it would be a waste to spend money there unless you have a chance of winning the state. Paul is concentrating on the caucus states, the states with open primaries and the states with proportional awarding of delegates.

You say this like you think I don't know it.

Paul's only chance in this race is to dispel the idea that he will inevitably lose, an idea which is held by every major political observer in this country. In order to do that, he has to have wins, or at least close second-place finishes...getting 15-20% of the vote in every state is meaningless. He blew his best chance at a win in Iowa. His next-best chance is Nevada on Feb 4, but if Gingrich wins SC and is competitive in Florida, then the race will be between Romney and Gingrich not Romney and Gingrich and Paul. If you think Paul gets ignored and miscovered by media now, just wait until the race has been cleared out and you have two big-name, well-funded candidates - one conservative, one more moderate - slugging it out for the top in every state.

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

You say this like you think I don't know it.

Paul's only chance in this race is to dispel the idea that he will inevitably lose, an idea which is held by every major political observer in this country. In order to do that, he has to have wins, or at least close second-place finishes...getting 15-20% of the vote in every state is meaningless. He blew his best chance at a win in Iowa. His next-best chance is Nevada on Feb 4, but if Gingrich wins SC and is competitive in Florida, then the race will be between Romney and Gingrich not Romney and Gingrich and Paul. If you think Paul gets ignored and miscovered by media now, just wait until the race has been cleared out and you have two big-name, well-funded candidates - one conservative, one more moderate - slugging it out for the top in every state.

You perpetuate this "he can't win" by saying he "blew his chance in Iowa". He won just as many delegates in Iowa as Romney so how did he "lose"?

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

Good point, the only thing that matters is how many delegates you get. My bad.

Did Romney win Iowa? Are you sure?

If the media had any credibility they would have reported Iowa as a three-way tie or at least a state where no one showed any advantage. Unless they tried to make a big deal about an 8 vote win meaning something in a country of 300+ million people.

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

Yeah, because when two candidates tie and another one finishes 3% behind them, that's definitely a 3-way tie.

You sound like Cortz talking about Eli.

Statistically it is. Note that Paul came in tied for first in delegates awarded because of how close statistically the vote was. In a country of a few hundred million people, losing by a few hundred or thousand votes isn't very relevant unless the press wants it to be.

This should help Newt...

In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an "open marriage" arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife.

Daily Fantasy Sports

US-based P5ers

PocketFives does not recommend playing online poker on sites offering rake-based games in the
United States, except on state-licensed sites in New Jersey,
Nevada,
and Delaware.

We understand your frustration with the current situation, and that frustration is shared by many of us in the poker community. We hope to have positive news soon regarding online poker regulation in the remaining U.S. states.